Who’s to “blame” for polarization?

posted at 11:40 am on February 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, the Washington Post ran an article with the curious headline, “Obama: The most polarizing President. Ever.” While there is no doubt that Obama has been a polarizing figure, the certainty of that statement caught my eye. As it turns out, the article itself doesn’t make that claim — it only says that Obama has the highest differential between approval ratings of each party in his third year than any President since Gallup has been tracking that data, which would be roughly since Eisenhower, I believe. The selection of Obama leaves off Abraham Lincoln, whose election was so polarizing that it led to secession and the Civil War, or Richard Nixon during Watergate, to name just two examples.

Even apart from the absurd basis for the Post’s claim — George W. Bush had three higher polarization ratings, for instance — can we blame Presidents entirely for polarization? In my column for The Week, I argue no, and that this results from a move in political parties from regional and traditional strongholds to more ideological entities:

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have had decades-long shifts in political temperaments in their own search for first principles, starting with the Barry Goldwater candidacy in 1964 and the New Left’s arrival at the Democratic convention in 1968. In short, for almost 50 years, both parties have been changing in fits and starts from their traditional big-tent geographical roots to more ideological organizations. Where we once had plenty of crossover in Congress between blue-dog Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans, the politicians have now affiliated themselves to party by ideology. There has been a remarkable growth of division on non-unanimous votes, especially in the Senate.

It would be foolish to believe that elected officials have partitioned themselves off ideologically without having voters already do the same. Pressure from grassroots activists in both parties has transformed Republicans and Democrats into conservatives and progressives. There are still plenty of subvariants of both, and a spectrum within each group. But over the last 20 years, the notions of “conservative Democrat” and “liberal Republican” have taken on a sepia-tinged patina, a throwback to a bygone era.

There is something to be said for this development, as it tends to focus on actual principles of governance rather than just political expediency. That presents a more honest choice for the voter, even the unaffiliated and/or moderate voter who may not adhere to one set of principles. On the other hand, a little political expediency helps to get tasks accomplished, and the lack of crossover means that more of the routine tasks in Washington end up becoming battlegrounds for larger ideological principles.

Presidents are not disconnected from this process, of course, and presidents have a unique position in American politics from which to help temper or fan these ideological flames. They remain, however, a product of their times rather than a driver of the underlying currents that raised them to leadership positions. As much as we might want to lay the blame on Obama, Bush, or any other president, the actual blame or glory falls on us all.

Be sure to read it all; The Week’s site was down a little earlier, but the column also appears at Yahoo. Speaking of personal responsibility for polarization, though, one theory holds that the online political culture causes people to stop accessing sources that challenge their worldview, especially blogs and blogreaders, and some blame that for increased polarization. A new study by Ohio State shows that those who tend to visit friendly sites also tend more to visit sites challenging their perspective:

Despite the fears of some scholars and pundits, most political partisans don’t avoid news and opinion sources that contradict their own beliefs, according to a new study.

In fact, the more that self-described liberals and conservatives visited online sources supportive of their beliefs, the more likely they were to also view opposition websites, as well as general news sites.

Perhaps the result is that we tend to organize more honestly. That has its pluses and minuses, but it puts the ideological and philosophical distinctions more clearly in play. That’s neither Obama’s fault nor his beneficence, but simply a result of the evolution in American politics over a very long time that produced Obama as a party leader.

Update: I clarified the last sentence in the first paragraph to make my meaning clear. The “That” reference was really sloppy.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

That’s neither Obama’s fault nor his beneficence, but simply a result of the evolution in American politics over a very long time that produced Obama as a party leader.

Heh.

Nope…..this D-Bag hasn’t even made an effort. He disparages the Right every chance he gets…he’s forced unwanted edicts down the throat of the electorate, and has engaged in croneyism to an unheard of degree.

Well … as a conservative, I put most of the blame on the Left. :) I mean, they seem to see conflict where I see simple disagreement. And strangely, they seem to find people who disagree with them intolerable. Rather than agreeing to disagree, they’d rather believe “OK then you’re a racist and you hate poor people”. I think liberals are often stupid and wrong, in that they don’t understand that their feel-good policies today create more harm in the long run, such as the growing national debt. While liberals think I’m evil, hateful, selfish, heartless. So who’s creating a toxic atmosphere? They are.

Each individual that uses the tactics that create the polerization are responsible for it. Hot Air for example used polerizing tactics against Newt these last few weeks. Now, I guess you can reap the rewards that those actions inevitably lead to, people who will not vote for your candidate under any circumstance.

since Gallup has been tracking that data, which would be roughly since Eisenhower, I believe. That leaves off Abraham Lincoln, whose election was so polarizing that it led to secession and the Civil War, or Richard Nixon during Watergate

Ed writes:
Presidents are not disconnected from this process, of course, and presidents have a unique position in American politics from which to help temper or fan these ideological flames. They remain, however, a product of their times rather than a driver of the underlying currents that raised them to leadership positions.

I was rather hoping for a discussion of the headline of your piece “Obama is not the most polarizing president ever”. That concerns to what extent a President is NOT simply a product of their times. I wanted to hear whether Obama’s words and actions were polarizing, with examples and analysis. I felt like I ordered a steak and got served a tofu burger.

which would be roughly since Eisenhower, I believe. That leaves off Abraham Lincoln, whose election was so polarizing that it led to secession and the Civil War, or Richard Nixon during Watergate

I know you don’t think Nixon was president before Eisenhower, right? I think you were trying to say that the differential between supporters of Nixon and non-supporters was greater than Obama’s after three years.

Local radio is covering Jim Moran’s racist attack on Colonel West right now (realclearpolitics has the story). He essentially called Colonel West a clueless hyena and a slacker who is a traitor to his race. Obama, by contrast is a credit to his race and his public service is a living legacy. Nevermind that Colonel West served in the military including combat tours while Obama was supposedly running around Harvard and Jim Moran was sitting in Congress enjoying the spoils of Jack Murtha’s kickback machine.

So, I’m not saying that Moran is to blame for polarization but I am saying that nothing is going to change as long as white liberal moron’s are able to get away with this kind of incendiary and racist rhetoric. But the double standard needs to end as well. A white conservative Congressman could never get away with calling Maxine Waters or John Conyers a clueless hyena no matter how true that statement is.

Gallup has been tracking that data, which would be roughly since Eisenhower, I believe. That leaves off Abraham Lincoln, whose election was so polarizing that it led to secession and the Civil War, or Richard Nixon during Watergate,

I know you don’t think Nixon was president before Eisenhower, right? I think you were trying to say that the differential between supporters of Nixon and non-supporters was greater than Obama’s after three years.

RedCrow on February 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I took him to mean that Nixon left office in his 2nd term before his 3rd year ended.

I think a lot of liberals spend considerable effort to put down other news sites. I have been trying to understand why liberals are so obsessed over Fox News. They delight at such stupid antics as having Miss Piggy take a cheap shot at the network. It is like Fox News is the enemy of their well-being. It is just a news channel and the viewership isn’t really that big compared to all the TV shows and MSM outlets controlled by liberals. I just don’t see how that balances out with the Ohio State study.

After following the clues provided by the MRC I make sport of reading Reuters, AP, etc. For instance, just assume anything that is unsourced/anonymous is credited as an attempt to steer opinion. Right before the house came into session recently Reuters ran a piece that asserted the GOP was at war with the Tea Party with no named sources.

The very next week Reuters ran a story QUOTING Boehner and several others that no such thing is happening.

Once you learn the journalistic techniques that Bozell and the gang explains you can get much more information than they want you to know.

President Bush wasn’t polarizing, but his inner-circle and most ardent followers sure as hell were.

Aizen on February 1, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Bush’s best quality was in never responding in kind to nasty remarks about himself. Never complained. I’m sure he heard them, but he restrained himself from doing tit-for-tat, even with his bully pulpit. Then when he was out of office, he hardly said a word. WHEN Obama loses in 2012, I expect him to follow more in Carter’s and Clinton’s footsteps, rather than Bush’s.

Bush’s best quality was in never responding in kind to nasty remarks about himself. Never complained. I’m sure he heard them, but he restrained himself from doing tit-for-tat, even with his bully pulpit. Then when he was out of office, he hardly said a word. WHEN Obama loses in 2012, I expect him to follow more in Carter’s and Clinton’s footsteps, rather than Bush’s.

Paul-Cincy on February 1, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Of course. One thing that can never be said about Bush was that he lowered the Office of the Presidency. Obama whined, moaned and acted out like a child even when his own stupid party controlled Congress.

Then when he was out of office, he hardly said a word. WHEN Obama loses in 2012, I expect him to follow more in Carter’s and Clinton’s footsteps, rather than Bush’s.

Paul-Cincy on February 1, 2012 at 12:12 PM

..are you kidding? Unfettered by the decorum dictated by the office of president, this weak sniveling little man will be on every talk show and every cable outlet (even BORE on FNS) and be whining about what a rotten deal he got. It will be ceaseless and make Carter and Clinton look like the paragon of statesmanship.

In fact, the more that self-described liberals and conservatives visited online sources supportive of their beliefs, the more likely they were to also view opposition websites, as well as general news sites.

It is ancedotal, but *none* of the liberals I know look for alternative views, and in fact react in indignation over even moderate news sources like FOXN.

As a conservative it is impossible for me to cocoon myself that way, even if I wanted to. The mass media pushes leftist views to such an extent that it you get the leftist view on issues just watching movies or TV.

Ed, I think you’ve only hit one of the symptoms, not the root of the problem. The country is becoming more polarized because the Constitution gradually is being turned upside down. The most represetative and responsive government is the most local. City concil should have the most impact on my daily living, the state less and the federal gov’t even less. That way I don’t have to follow laws they want in New York and California so I don’t see them as an enemy. You could even take the progression down to family and ultimately the individual having the most control over his or her life.

It’s hard enough making choices that make everyone in your household happy – and yet DC wants to me the once making more and more choices that 330 million people have to follow. And the state government has far more power than local. In Lansing, they need to write laws that affect me and the people of Detroit – everyone one is bound to make either them or me upset and more angry with the other group who wants these laws.

So who is to blame? Anyone who wants to give more power to big goverment and take it away from the local levels.

Democrats, and some independent observers, say that if Bush had been serious about changing the tone in Washington, he would have sought to reach common ground with his opponents, and not just use civil words while forcing an unyielding agenda on them. Starting with Bush’s first tax cut and extending through the response to terrorism and the Iraq war, he has been uncompromising, they say.

“It’s his way or no way,” said Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the Senate minority whip. “He’s a man who campaigned on having a better relationship, and it’s exactly the opposite of what he said he would do. I’ve never served with anybody who is so uncooperative.”

It is ancedotal, but *none* of the liberals I know look for alternative views, and in fact react in indignation over even moderate news sources like FOXN.

As a conservative it is impossible for me to cocoon myself that way, even if I wanted to. The mass media pushes leftist views to such an extent that it you get the leftist view on issues just watching movies or TV.

18-1 on February 1, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Ditto here. Instead, they assure themselves it’s not “real news”.

I keep begging a liberal friend of mine to read other sources, but he never does.

I think I have to respectfully disagree with Ed on this one. I do believe this president has been the most polarizing ever.

It began when he (and Michelle) used race during the campaign. “I may not look like the presidents on the dollar bill” or “Barack might get shot pumping gas…”.

It continued when he used class warfare as his primary tactic during the campaign.

He set the divisiveness ball in motion officially by slamming his predecessor during his inauguration speech.

He continued it by his open and vocal support for unions and silence during the tea party. Terms like “get in your neighbors face…” etc.

Throughout his presidency he has repeatedly mocked the American people that disagree with him. I have no recollection of any previous president mocking us citizens.

I could go on. The man cares more about ego and power than about fixing America. And he has surrounded himself with people of the same ilk. One year ago this week Valerie Jarrett asked a uniformed officer at a banquet to get her a glass of wine. Barbara Boxer chastised a General for calling her ma’am. This attitude is pervasive throughout the administration.

In fact, the more that self-described liberals and conservatives visited online sources supportive of their beliefs, the more likely they were to also view opposition websites, as well as general news sites.

It is ancedotal, but *none* of the liberals I know look for alternative views, and in fact react in indignation over even moderate news sources like FOXN.

As a conservative it is impossible for me to cocoon myself that way, even if I wanted to. The mass media pushes leftist views to such an extent that it you get the leftist view on issues just watching movies or TV.

18-1 on February 1, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Exactly!

You can’t swing a dead terrorist with hitting a new source pitching the latest leftist propaganda.

Example: if you listen to talk radio you will invariably be bombarded every ½ hour with the Socialist National Media’s spin on things.

The Left on the other hand – well, let’s just say that NPR – National Progressive Radio probably doesn’t have that much of a balanced approach.

Our National cadre of Socialists can exist in little echo chamber and never hear a discouraging word about the constant failure of their Marxist agenda.

The Left on the other hand – well, let’s just say that NPR – National Progressive Radio probably doesn’t have that much of a balanced approach.

Chip on February 1, 2012 at 12:32 PM

You had to go there! It is an excellent example of polarization in America. Ask a conservative about NPR and they will tell you how biased NPR is. Ask a liberal about NPR and they will tell just how balanced the programming is. Both positions can’t be right but liberals are just as convinced that NPR is fair as I am that it is a left-wing propaganda outlet.

Both positions can’t be right but liberals are just as convinced that NPR is fair as I am that it is a left-wing propaganda outlet.

Actually, they can in a way, if you imagine the close mindedness of your average liberals.

From my perspective a news source is balanced if it either forgoes narative and opinion completely, or if it has a fair mix from rightwing conservative to leftwing liberal.

Liberals only consider a narrow band of views to be legitimate though. Generally going from center/left to Euro-socialist. And indeed, NPR does present a “fair” mix of this part of the political spectrum.

It’s the Democrats’ fault for nominating him to run for president. It was Bush’s warmongering and attacks on human rights (see “Enhanced Interrogation”) and attacks on the freedom and liberty of American citizens (see Patriot Act) in the name of “national security” that got President Obama elected into office. Many who voted for Obama did so as a way to “punish” the Republican Party and its establishment cronies. We have all been punished as a result.

BOTH of the corrupt, treasonous, criminal political parties and their feeble camp followers are to blame for most of this nation’s woes.

In my parallel universe we drill for oil instead of paying Brazil to do the same. We green light free market policies to create jobs instead of subsidizing failed technologies. We realize electric cars run on dirty coal supplied electricity and Climate Change is a scam.

Wow, that WaPo steaming heap has more holes than a piece of domestic Swiss Cheese.

They also throw a lot of Leftist straw men into the article, such as:

“I am optimistic that we can change the tone in Washington, D.C.,” he said after the Supreme Court cemented his victory.

This is one of the very first sentences in the story, so immediately sets the tone for the WaPo Leftist “readers” that Bush didn’t legitimately win the election. It leaves out the Inconvenient Truths in that story, such as the fact that all the Supreme Court did was dismiss the challenge by Bush’s “opponent”. It ignores that his “opponent” would never have needed to win the State of Florida if he had instead won his own home state, and it ignores that of the 3 SCOTUS decisions in the case, one was 9-0 against Gore, and the decision that “cemented his victory” was 7-2 against Gore.

Another passage caught my eye:

Democrats are particularly critical of Bush for his response to the 2001 terrorist attacks after the first few months of national unity. They say he used his popularity to bully them on the budget, taxes and the environment. “The tone changes as long as you’re having a monologue,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), a former Clinton aide. “If you question them one iota, they challenge your patriotism.”

And yet it was the Democrats themselves who said “Dissent is Patriotic”, but then supported and elected a pResident who set up an “Attack Watch” website so his peasants could Turn In the Traitors who dared to voice their displeasure with their Dear Leader.

And this followed:

Democrats were stung by the fight with Bush over competing versions of homeland security legislation, which became part of the 2002 campaign. Bush claimed that his opponents in the Senate were “more interested in special interests . . . than they are in protecting the American people.” They resent his celebration of the GOP’s “positive” campaign of 2002, including a Georgia Senate race in which a Democratic incumbent who lost three limbs in the Vietnam War was portrayed as aiding Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

This explosive passage implies that Bush had personally knowledge and had no problem with the ad that Saxby Chambliss ran against “a Democratic incumbent who lost three limbs in the Vietnam War” (more on him later).

In reality, the controversial TV ad Chambliss ran said no such thing about his opponent. At the very beginning of the ad is a brief flash of the pictures of bin Laden and Saddam (total air time 3 seconds) and Chambliss’ opponent’s picture is not shown until after they are gone. And the ad itself never accuses the Democrat of “aiding” bin Laden and Saddam, it simply and correctly notes that said opponent voted against Chimpy Bush’s national security efforts 11 times.

And speaking of Chambliss’ Democrat opponent, this passage implies that Max Cleland, the “Democratic incumbent who lost three limbs in the Vietnam War” lost those limbs in combat; in reality he lost the limbs by accidentally dropping a live grenade while boarding a helicopter to go to a party.

This article came out before the 2004 election. And we all know how the Democrats reacted to that loss.

any President since Gallup has been tracking that data, which would be roughly since Eisenhower, I believe. The selection of Obama leaves off Abraham Lincoln, whose election was so polarizing that it led to secession and the Civil War, or Richard Nixon during Watergate, to name just two examples.

Liberals, the press, the Democratic party, and the sitting President are the cause of most the current polarization in the U.S. today. There is no such thing as honest dialogue or reasoned debate if any of the above participate.